Ökologie https://www.boell.de/en/rss.xml/6549
enNegative CO2 emissions cannot replace rapid reductionshttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/06/19/negative-co2-emissions-cannot-replace-rapid-emission-reductions
<a href="/en/2018/06/19/negative-co2-emissions-cannot-replace-rapid-emission-reductions"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/06/wald.jpg?itok=7WjZFGRe" width="300" height="200" alt="" /></a>
<p>From May 22<sup>nd</sup> to 24<sup>th</sup>, over 200 academics, policy-makers, activists, and private sector actors gathered in Gothenberg, Sweden for a major conference on “<a href="http://negativeco2emissions2018.com/" target="Conference">Negative CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions</a>”, with discussions focused on the need to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere if we are to meet the temperature targets of the Paris climate agreement.</p>
<p>The conference opened with an announcement from Eva Seling, Swedish Secretary for State and Development, launching an official enquiry into the potential for forests, soil, and bioenergy to provide carbon removal in Sweden, followed by a keynote presentation from renowned climate scientist <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/" target="Hansen">James Hansen</a>.</p>
<p>Hansen expressed skepticism that we can remove emissions from the atmosphere cost-effectively at scale, and warned of the moral hazard that promising this technology in the future will delay action now. Hansen used his keynote to communicate the urgency of the climate crisis – outlining two imminent threats facing humanity: <a href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/" target="atmos">the inertia in oceans and ice-sheets</a>, meaning we are close to the point of handing young people a situation where sea-level rise is out of their control; and <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648" target="journals">mass species exterminations</a> due to poleward movement of climatic zones at a rate beyond which species can adapt to.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.chalmers.se/en/staff/Pages/anders-lyngfelt.aspx" target="Anders">Anders Lyngfelt</a> of Chalmers University of Technology, hosting the conference, finished up the opening keynotes by describing negative emissions as a question of balance - arguing it is irresponsible to base climate policy on future negative emissions, but we are now in a situation where it is irresponsible not to remove CO<sub>2 </sub>from the atmosphere. Lyngfelt suggested that trying to do this will make apparent the real costs of releasing CO<sub>2</sub> into the atmosphere for free.</p>
<h2>Negative emissions cannot replace rapid reductions</h2>
<p>Perhaps put on notice by these stark warnings from Hansen, a persistent theme throughout the three-day conference was the reminder that negative emissions do not replace the need for urgent and rapid reductions in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, but are needed in addition, to achieve a net reduction of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/people/clair-gough" target="Claire">Claire Gough</a> of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research made the distinction between negative emissions (leading to net-zero atmospheric emissions), and net-negative emissions (meaning atmospheric concentrations of CO<sub>2</sub> are actually reduced). A distinction that was made in several presentations, and underlines the climate value of carbon dioxide removal.</p>
<p>The majority of presentations ended with the reminder that there is no way around deep emissions reductions, indicating perhaps a consensus in the governance of negative emissions - that they are only part of a climate mitigation strategy when used in addition to, and not instead of, deep emission reductions. The message that removing CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere does not compensate for ongoing emissions was a key takeaway from the conference.</p>
<h2>(Not) geoengineering?</h2>
<p>Several presentations argued that carbon dioxide removal should not be considered as geoengineering<strong>. </strong><a href="https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/about/team/minx-jan.html" target="Minx">Jan Minx</a> of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin, presented a recently published <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b/meta" target="synthesis">synthesis of literature on negative emissions</a>, which argues that negative emission technologies are “conceptually” similar to traditional mitigation measures, in that they prevent the accumulation of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere. As such they should be considered distinct from solar radiation management, which modifies and enhances the reflectivity of the Earth system, arguing that it is not useful to categorize these two very different clusters of response options under the same terminology of geoengineering.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/scientist-detail/oliver-geden/" target="Geden">Oliver Geden</a>, from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, talked of the political motivations to separating carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Geden suggested that the European Union could remove the label of geoengineering from CDR to make deployment of CDR technologies more feasible, given concerns around public acceptability.</p>
<p>Others argue that more attention must be paid to the <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/emissions-reduction-scrutinize-co2-removal-methods-1.19318" target="Nature">environmental impacts of large-scale CO<sub>2 </sub>removal</a>, and that <a href="https://www.cbd.int/climate/geoengineering/" target="CBD">the CBD</a> considers most, if not all, tech­niques for CO<sub>2</sub> removal to be climate geo­engineering.</p>
<h2>(Natural) climate solutions</h2>
<p>In terms of things definitely not geoengineering, there was a small but rich thread of presentations devoted to biospheric carbon removal – using forests, soils and landscapes to remove and store carbon. Public acceptability again was a key theme here, with evidence that people will accept (and prefer) natural climate solutions over interventions such as BECCS.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.abdn.ac.uk/ibes/profiles/pete.smith" target="Smith">Pete Smith</a> from the University of Aberdeen presented a new paper showing the <a href="http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/376/2119/20160456" target="Biodiversity">impacts on biodiversity when moving from a 2°C world to a 1.5°C world</a>, including impacts from mitigation measures. Smith also highlighted how a recent paper on <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/114/44/11645" target="pnas">natural climate solutions</a> has caught the attention of policy makers because it offers more simple, natural solutions than the negative emissions technologies - but Smith questioned whether natural solutions gets us to where we need to be to hit the 2°C or 1.5°C target, suggesting ‘nastier’ forms of CDR would also be needed.</p>
<p>Oliver Geden made the point that ‘natural climate solutions’ sells politically – they are good things to do anyway - and Green parties, environmental movements and the public can get behind net-negative emissions if it is based on natural solutions. However, the distinction between natural and ‘unnatural’ climate solutions was often blurred, or missed entirely, with afforestation / reforestation (A/R) and ecosystem restoration being used interchangeably in many presentations, not to mention in integrated assessment models. The need to distinguish between BECCS and A/R, with <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/coproducing-climate-policy-and-negative-emissions-tradeoffs-for-sustainable-landuse/CE06F8A4BB2745389C53EEBE84EB95E7" target="Cambridge">negative environmental and social impacts</a>, and ecosystem based solutions that bring real benefits for and biodiversity, has never been more important.</p>
<p>Anna Repo, of the Finnish Environment Institute, looked at the effects of large-scale forest harvest and residue extraction for bioenergy on forest carbon balance and deadwood in boreal forests, finding that residue harvesting reduces the forest carbon sink and reduces the net emissions savings from bioenergy by 18%. Depending on the scale, residue harvesting can turn the forest from a net sink into a net source, meaning <a href="http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Research__Development/Climate_change/Bioenergy_from_sustainable_forestry_does(28740)" target="Syke">bioenergy from forest residues may not be carbon neutral</a>. Removal of deadwood also has detrimental effects on biodiversity and ecosystems as there is no replacement for deadwood in the landscape.</p>
<p><a href="https://jeffersonscholars.org/people/stephanie-roe" target="Roe">Stephanie Roe</a>, of the University of Virginia looked at the contribution of the land-sector to meeting the 1.5°C goal, finding that when bioenergy is held constant at baseline levels, then natural forests are maintained, suggesting there are alternative pathways that don’t have the perverse outcomes on natural forests seen in BECCS-reliant pathways. However, this may drive more costly mitigation elsewhere and relies more heavily on demand side measures such as shifting to healthy diets. Roe concluded that integrated assessment models need to better integrate SDGs and prioritization with the land-use community to understand the trade-offs and challenges in land-sector mitigation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.imk-ifu.kit.edu/staff_Almut_Arneth.php" target="Arneth">Almut Arneth</a>, from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, highlighted the scale of land-use change assumed by integrated assessment models, which suggest we could double the land sink by the end of the century, and double todays HANNP (human appropriation of net primary production) by 2050 to meet the projected scale of bioenergy demand. Yet achieving even a fraction of this scale of land conversion would have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0064-y" target="Nature">significant consequences on biodiversity and food production</a>.</p>
<h2>(Unfounded) hope</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=39063" target="Beck">Silke Beck</a> of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research spoke of how the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3264" target="Nature">IPCC serves as a site of de facto governance</a>, and the risks of promoting unfounded hope in negative emissions. Beck outlined how integrated assessment models have legitimized the concept of negative emissions, thereby transforming models into tools for policy making - making what were sometimes previously unthinkable notions mainstream and acceptable. Beck argued that the presence of BECCS in models makes a BECCS colored future more likely, with a slippery slope between a 'possible' pathway and political reality where these essentially 'speculative' technologies are considered the only 'feasible' way to meet climate targets, while other options labeled ‘not feasible’ are off the table.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/about-us/people/duncan-mclaren" target="Duncan">Duncan McLaren</a> of Lancaster University warned against the evolving promises of NETs. McLaren described <a href="https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3412017" target="Gartner">how new technologies evolve</a>, from the peak of inflated expectations to the trough of disillusionment, and the eventual plateau of productivity. However, some technologies are never delivered, or are maintained as promises for long periods without ever materializing. CCS, for example, has functioned best as a promise that is not implemented, as large-scale implementation would imply excessive costs on the fossil fuel industry. There are risks that BECCS substitutes for fossil fuel mitigation in integrated assessment models, at a scale that cannot be delivered. BECCS has transitioned from a way of reducing costs to a physical necessity – and could become a sequence of promises that sustains the underlying regime.</p>
<p>In a panel discussing modelling, policy and incentives, <a href="http://www.pbl.nl/en/aboutpbl/employees/detlef-van-vuuren" target="VanVuuren">Detlef van Vuuren</a> from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency said the amount of net-negative emissions are not a given - we can <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0119-8" target="Nature">reduce reliance on carbon removals</a> (<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0172-6" target="Nature">and even eliminate it</a>), but he argued that this doesn’t make the transition any easier, as alternative mitigation pathways to BECCs are also challenging, requiring major behavioral changes in addition to zeroing out fossil fuel emissions. Van Vuuren concluded that an <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0055-2" target="Nature">open discussion around negative emissions is urgently needed</a>, as so far this has been too implicitly embedded in models.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/people/naomi-vaughan" target="Naomie">Naomie Vaughan</a> of the University of East Anglia and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research suggested that it is not about the right amount of hope versus fear, it is about being honest - we are talking about trade-offs – stop flying or negative emissions? Reduce meat consumption or negative emissions? Vaughan suggested desirability rather than feasibility may be a framework to think about the future we want.</p>
<p>During the panel discussion Hansen pointed out that fossil fuels are currently subsidized - the costs are not paid to society. If the cost of getting carbon out of the atmosphere was attached to putting it there, we would understand that it makes more sense to reduce emissions, than to pay <a href="https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/" target="Earth">$400 - $500 billion per year to extract it</a>. Hansen admitted that scientists have not done a good job so far of communicating the urgency of climate change, but felt that the ‘solutions’ coming out of integrated assessment models will not do anything to move us off the path we are on. Hansen suggested we are not going to reduce global emissions as long as fossil fuels are allowed to be cheap, and there has been a complete lack of leadership on this problem.</p>
<h2>Real world implications</h2>
<p>There were many conference presentations on different technologies, with a <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-fallout-from-saskpowers-boundary-dam-ccs-debacle-54803/" target="Reneweconomy">controversial CCS plant</a> presented as a success story, and <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f/meta">cost analysis</a> of various negative emissions technologies showing high costs and uncertainties. Most apparent in all of this was the mis-match between the scale of expected CO<sub>2</sub> removals (in models), and real-world implementation.</p>
<p>Anders Lyngfelt explained that total CO<sub>2</sub> storage today is about 30 Mt/year (0.1% of global emissions). To capture even one years’ worth of global emissions, would require a capture rate of 5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub> every year for seven years, but Lyngfelt emphasized that 5 Gt CO<sub>2</sub> is an enormous amount to capture. <a href="https://www.cicero.oslo.no/en/employee/30/glen-peters" target="Peters">Glen Peters</a> of CICERO in Oslo, speaking of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3202" target="Nature">tracking progress towards the Paris Agreement</a>, noted that CCS deployment continues to lag behind expectations, with modelled scenarios requiring potentially 4000 facilities by 2030, compared to the tens currently proposed by 2020. <a href="https://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/faculty-staff/faculty/gregory-f-nemet" target="Nemet">Greg Nemet</a> of the University of Wisconsin summed this up with a review that current research is not aligned with an imminent scale-up of negative emissions technologies.</p>
<p>The issue (and irony) of negative emissions scale-up being reliant of the fossil fuel industry was not lost. One speaker noted that if we shut down the fossil fuel industry, competence for storing emissions underground will be lost. <a href="https://pangea.stanford.edu/people/sally-benson" target="Benson">Sally Benson</a> of Stanford University, in a keynote on geological storage, made the point that to achieve a reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, long-term storage is key, concluding: "If we are interested in negative emissions, we probably shouldn't be looking at enhanced oil recovery".</p>
<p>The conference aimed to look at how negative emissions can become a reality at scale – but in reality, the scale question is fraught with challenges. The dialogue and debate that occurred was valuable in making clear the stark choices society faces: while the scale of a technology such as BECCS in modelled pathways may rightly be criticized as speculative, the reliance of a 1.5°C temperature limit on removing (some amount of) CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere is also a necessity. The conference highlighted the fact that there is no escape route from reducing emissions - the challenge before us is to limit reliance on carbon removals to levels that can be achieved through <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9" target="hbs">options that benefit, rather than undermine, people, biodiversity and food systems</a>.</p>
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:41:28 +0200Kate Dooley297793A Climate-Friendly Response to Trump’s Protectionismhttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/06/11/climate-friendly-response-trumps-protectionism
<a href="/en/2018/06/11/climate-friendly-response-trumps-protectionism"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/06/stahlwerk-duisburg.jpg?itok=_43ALojq" width="300" height="200" alt="" title="Abandoned train station at a former coal and steel production plant in Duisburg-Nord, Germany" /></a>
<p>As US President Donald Trump translates his “America First” strategy into import tariffs, and the European Union prepares to adopt countermeasures moving the global economy toward a trade standoff, the real challenge facing the two economies – indeed, the entire world – is being ignored. That challenge is to shape the global economy, including trade, so that it finally respects the planet’s natural boundaries.<br />Trump’s trade agenda is putting progressives into a paradoxical position. For many years, they have been denouncing the current trade system as both unjust and ecologically destructive. But in the face of Trump’s nationalist protectionism, with its echoes of the fatal mistakes of the 1930s, some feel obliged to defend the current system.</p>
<p>Neoliberal defenders of the status quo now see a political opportunity. Lumping progressives together with Trump as “protectionists,” they are denouncing the justified wide-ranging protests of civil society against mega-regional deals like the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the United States.</p>
<p>In order for progressive politics to succeed, its proponents need to go beyond defending the existing trade system against Trump. They need to go on the offensive, which means pressing for reforms intended to create a just, equitable, and rules-based international trade order. Otherwise, Trump-style economic nationalism will continue to resonate with a large share of the population, in the US and elsewhere.</p>
<p>For starters, with the EU debating countermeasures to US tariffs of 10% on aluminum and 25% on steel, it is worth looking beyond the economic significance of the dispute, to the ecological aspects of the commodities in question. For example, steel production, which uses metallurgical or “coking”coal, accounts for roughly 5% of global CO2 emissions.</p>
<p>This is not inevitable. Steel can be replaced by less emissions-intensive alternative materials. It can also be produced with much lower emissions. Swedish producers are researching virtually CO2-free steel production using electricity and hydrogen acquired from renewable energy sources. And the German multinational thyssenkrupp is developing a process using exhaust fumes from steel production as a feedstock for chemical products and synthetic natural gas, lowering carbon pollution.</p>
<p>But these alternatives will not be viable as long as the established steel industry is permitted to use the atmosphere as a free dump for CO2 emissions. Economists across the political spectrum agree that one key to limiting greenhouse-gas emissions is to make it more expensive for companies to produce them – so expensive that climate-friendly options become cheaper in comparison, and thus competitive. That is why the German Green party is calling for a floor price on CO2 emissions to be established as part of the EU’s Emissions Trading System. The state of California has already done so in its trading scheme. We want to lead the way, together with France, in Europe.</p>
<p>Such proposals have met with strong resistance. Many argue that a high price for emissions in Europe would give foreign producers a competitive edge in the EU market. Moreover, because production would simply move abroad, the logic goes, the environment would ultimately be no better off overall.</p>
<p>Despite its weaknesses, this argument has impressed European policymakers. But there is an obvious workaround: a duty could be imposed on emissions-intensive imports – like steel, cement, and aluminum – at the EU border. This would be an important step toward a just, climate-responsive trading system. The duty would be fair, because environmental rules would apply equally to European and foreign products. And as long as the same levies were imposed on locally produced goods, such “border carbon adjustment” would not violate World Trade Organization rules.</p>
<p>By enabling countries committed to environmental protection to push back against those that are not, this strategy would help align the global trading system more closely with ecological imperatives. Policies such as border carbon adjustment are not narrow-minded national protectionism, but a necessary reaction by countries committed to climate protection. Nor is it a new idea: every climate bill that failed in the US Congress in 2009 included such a mechanism.</p>
<p>Rather than allowing itself to be dragged into Trump’s destructive trade games, the EU should introduce border carbon adjustment in order to foster a climate-friendly system. French President Emmanuel Macron is already a vocal supporter. A group of researchers representing MIT, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, and other leading institutions, has already developed a set of concrete proposals regarding how to implement such a program. By doing so, the EU would make the case for fairer and cleaner trade.</p>
<p>By demonstrating that a lack of commitment to climate protection comes with a price, such a response could spur change elsewhere, including the US. For example, it might encourage the Trump administration to reconsider its withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, particularly if European actors reached out to likeminded progressives in, say, California or New York. Even if Trump remains unmoved, a CO2 levy might deter his potential imitators elsewhere.</p>
<p>With such a calibrated and forward-thinking response to Trump’s narrow-minded protectionism, the EU would cement its role as a trailblazer in the quest for a fairer, more sustainable trading system. In doing so, it would not only help protect the environment on which we all depend, but also boost its own international clout. That, not a trade war, is what the world needs now.</p>
<p><em>This text was first published at <a href="https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-steel-tariffs-climate-friendly-response-by-barbara-unmuessig-and-michael-kellner-2018-06/german" target="httpswwwprojectsyndicateorgcommentarytrumpsteeltariffsclimatefriendlyresponsebybarbaraunmuessigandmichaelkellner201806german">Project Syndicate</a>.</em><br /> </p>
Fri, 08 Jun 2018 09:30:33 +0200Barbara Unmüßig, Michael Kellner297705Nguy Thi Khanh: Changing the world for the betterhttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/30/nguy-thi-khanh-changing-world-better
<a href="/en/2018/04/30/nguy-thi-khanh-changing-world-better"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/turntable/https___th.boell.org_sites_default_files_uploads_2018_April%252030%252C%25202018_award2018.jpg?itok=PTVn4l58" width="300" height="200" alt="" /></a>
<p><a href="https://www.goldmanprize.org/" rel="nofollow">The Goldman Environmental Prize</a> is one of the world’s most prestigious award honoring grassroot environmental activists. It is the first Goldman Prize for Vietnam and it brings important international recognition for progress in pushing for sustainable energy in Vietnam.</p>
<p>Furthermore, in 2018 the world’s foremost environmental prize has announced more female winners than ever before (five out of six), recognizing the key function women are playing in defending the planet. The winners include South African anti-nuclear activists Makoma Lekalakala and Liz McDaid, Vietnamese clean energy advocate Nguy Thi Khanh, US clean water defender LeeAnne Walters, and French marine life champion Claire Nouvian. The only male winner is anti-lead campaigner Manny Calonzo from the Philippines.</p>
<p>The Goldman Environmental Prize gives hope and time to pause for one night and gain new power for whatever comes next. The prize ceremony reminds us of what it takes to protect our planet; all 2018 winners follow different approaches for different environmental problems. Fitting to the individual context, all are answering the following questions: What does it take to halt air pollution, to shut down a destructive coal mine, to clean up a toxic waste site? What does it take to restore clean water for your community, to safeguard our ocean’s resource, to save an endangered species, to protect a virgin forest when you have no political clout? What does it take to resist when the opposition seems insurmountable? Sometimes it takes just one person who becomes many and then becomes a movement. It takes one of us and all of us!</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="1631" src="https://th.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/April 30, 2018/khanh.jpg" /></p>
<p>The one of us from Vietnam is Ms. Nguy Thi Khanh. She was nominated for her work to slow down coal power expansion in Vietnam. For Khanh, Vietnam’s energy future is at a crossroads and every decision and every dollar invested today will be felt in Vietnam and in our earth’s climate for decades to come. When the Vietnamese National Assembly decided not to pursue nuclear power in 2016, Khanh and GreenID saw that changes for the better are achievable.</p>
<p>Born into a rural family in Bac Am, a village in northern Vietnam, and growing up near a coal plant, Ms. Khanh experienced the pollution and dust from coal operations firsthand and witnessed many people in her community developing cancer as a result. She was always passionate about the environment and after graduating from college began working on water conservation issues and community development for a small Vietnamese nonprofit organization.</p>
<p>In 2011, Ms. Khanh founded Green Innovation and Development Centre (GreenID) in order to promote sustainable energy development in Vietnam, as well as good water and air governance and green development. She also established the Vietnam Sustainable Energy Alliance (VSEA), a network of 11 Vietnamese and international environmental and social organizations that collaborate on regional energy issues. GreenID helped develop local energy plans to both support the uptake of renewable technologies and manage pollution.</p>
<p>This helped households and entire communities to minimize pollution of rivers, turn waste into energy, and acquire new, affordable technologies such as solar lights and worm farms. The success of the work has shown that there are very real, effective and affordable alternatives to energy from large hydropower and coal-fired power.</p>
<p>The positive changes of the past prove that we can achieve a lot when nonprofits, scientists, and state agencies work together. Today, the question for Vietnam is how to leapfrog a twentieth century energy model based on coal and large hydropower and take advantage of low cost and abundant renewable energy that will guarantee Vietnam’s future energy independence and safeguard our air, water and the earth.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="1625" src="https://th.boell.org/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/April 30, 2018/windpower-.jpg" /></p>
<p>The next two years are critical for Vietnam, and the international community will play an important role. In 2020, Vietnam will officially launch its newest power development plan. GreenID’s goal is to reduce coal’s share in favor of clean energy for people’s health and long-term sustainable development. Vietnam’s environmental movement calls on global governments and corporations to stop investing in coal in Vietnam and help the country move away from a high carbon future. There are many good investment opportunities in renewable energy and energy efficiency in Vietnam. It is good for the country and essential for our world. We cannot create a second earth, so fostering an energy transition more quickly is essential for us and our children.</p>
<p>GreenID’s team met relevant partners and joins key conferences in Southeast Asia as well as global events. On regional level, GreenID together with Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung’s office in Southeast Asia established a regional platform for relevant civil society partners of ASEAN countries to share, gain a better understanding and learn from each other. Keeping knowledge up to date and bringing external information and good practice examples back into the national discussion is the main goal of this regional network.</p>
<p>GreenID will continue demonstrating the success of renewable energy technologies with governmental, university and international partners, and all local partners across Vietnam. Only together, a new long-term energy vision that is powered by renewable energy and beyond coal is possible.</p>
<p>More information about GreenID’s important work is summed up in the organizational <a href="http://bit.ly/AnnualReportGreenID2017" rel="nofollow">annual report 2017</a> or in this <a href="http://www.flowful.org/podcast/ep6-greenid" rel="nofollow">podcast</a> with prize winner Ms. Khanh.</p>
<p><em> Lars Blume and Do Minh Tam work for <a href="http://en.greenidvietnam.org.vn/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">GreenID,</a> </em><em>a Vietnamese non-profit organization that works to promote sustainable development in Vietnam and the larger Mekong region.</em></p>
<p>This article was first published on <a href="https://energytransition.org/2018/04/nguy-thi-khanh-changing-the-world-for-the-better/" rel="nofollow">Energy Transition.org</a></p>
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 05:11:02 +0200Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung297568The digital energy revolution? Charge it with values!https://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/26/digital-energy-transition
<a href="/en/2018/04/26/digital-energy-transition"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/01/liander_smart_meter.jpg?itok=Pv7MdNym" width="300" height="200" alt=" Smart meter from Liander" title=" Smart meter from Liander" /></a>
<p><strong>The standard by which digitized power systems will be judged is their compliance with the environmental and social goals of the transition to renewable energy. The following is a contribution to the highly controversial debate on digitization and sustainability.</strong></p>
<p>Ethical aspects do not feature prominently in the technocratic and business-driven debate about the digitization of the power system. “Convenience” and “joy of use” are frequently cited, as is the contribution digitization will make toward the cost-effectiveness of companies. The goals of the energy transition, i.e.</p>
<ul><li>a life-friendly, ecologically-oriented power supply</li>
<li>broad social participation, co-determination and</li>
<li>​a decentralization of the power system</li>
</ul><p>and how they can be achieved through digitization tend to be lost from view. This also means that the dark sides of digital technologies, such as a new scale and quality of extractivism, continue to be neglected. The only ethical aspect that is taken into account is privacy. But precisely because the energy transition cannot be realized without digitization, it is high time to lay an ethical foundation for it.</p>
<h2><strong>1. Greening and limiting: efficiency, consistency and sufficiency are the triad of the digital energy transition.</strong></h2>
<p>This is not just a normative guardrail, but a de facto physical necessity in a world with limited resources. A power system is ecologically sustainable if it does not overuse natural resources such as soil, water and the atmosphere.<a href="https://www.boell.de/de/2018/01/18/digitale-energiewende-mit-werten-aufladen?dimension1=division_oen#1">[1]</a> </p>
<p>The key technologies of the energy transition – solar, wind and batteries – rely on rare earths and high-tech metals. The largest deposits of these raw materials are typically not in industrialized countries, but in Latin America (copper, iron ores, silver, lithium, manganese, etc.), in African countries (platinum, bauxite, manganese, etc.) and in Asian countries (rare earths, mainly in China). The hardware of digitization – smart phones, servers, hard drives, displays and the like – is resource-intensive. So-called (digital) future technology requires materials such as lithium, rhenium, terbium, germanium, cobalt, scandium and tantalum, leading to skyrocketing worldwide demand. <a href="https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Gemeinsames/Produkte/Downloads/Commodity_Top_News/Rohstoffwirtschaft/50_rohstoffe-energiewende.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&amp;v=1">The international rush for these raw materials has long since begun</a>, leading, for example, to the undersea mining of manganese at a depth of 4,000 meters, putting fragile ecosystems in great jeopardy.</p>
<h2><strong>Exercising technological moderation</strong></h2>
<p>Is metal recycling a solution here? Yes and no. It is certainly more environmentally friendly to reclaim metals than to downcycle or dispose of them. Firstly, however, recycling is only the third-best solution within the waste hierarchy<a href="https://www.boell.de/de/2018/01/18/digitale-energiewende-mit-werten-aufladen?dimension1=division_oen#2">[2]</a>, after waste avoidance and repair. Secondly, the recycling potential of many new technologies related to the power system (e.g. smart meters, fuel cells for mobile devices) is limited. Other materials and technologies (fiber optic cables, white LEDs, RFID chips, carbon touchscreens) cannot be recycled at all.<a href="https://www.boell.de/de/2018/01/18/digitale-energiewende-mit-werten-aufladen?dimension1=division_oen#3">[3</a>] Urban mining, cradle-to-cradle and economical intra-technology choices are cited as ways of reducing the ecological footprint of renewable energy infrastructure. Thanks to technological innovation, there will probably be additional possibilities in the future to make the hardware of the digital energy revolution more environmentally friendly. However, counting on as-yet nonexistent <a href="https://www.boell.de/de/node/295897?dimension1=division_oen">techno-fixes</a> to solve the socio-ecological resource and waste problem at some point down the road would be a grave mistake.</p>
<p>In addition, attention should be given to how sufficiency can be designed into the (digital) energy transition. Regulatory instruments and market incentives must be provided as soon as possible to reduce and avoid digital and material ballast.</p>
<h2><strong>2. Broad participation: the diversity of actors is characteristic of the German energy transition. A broad civic base is a value in itself that should be preserved in the course of digitization.</strong></h2>
<p>Energy cooperatives increase the acceptance of renewable energy projects and contribute to regional value creation. The citizens’ energy initiative forms a bridge between the transition to renewable energy as a technology project and the desire for social participation. The generators and users of electricity are digitally linked in a virtual power plant. Digitization is transforming citizens into flexible producers and consumers of energy. Marginal costs can be reduced using automation and algorithms, making action even on a small scale worthwhile.</p>
<p>What kind of political framework will this require? Which political conditions will contribute to a level digital playing field for corporations and the citizens’ energy initiative? </p>
<h2><strong>Digitization for citizen-oriented and decentralized power systems</strong></h2>
<p>The expansion of broadband must be promoted by the government, ideally in conjunction with the expansion of power grids. Modern communication networks and grids are crucial to a decentralized, citizen-oriented transition to renewable energy. If a public utility company is going to dig up a road anyway, the opportunity should be used to lay all of the needed lines directly.</p>
<p>Decentralized, regional and local consumption communities must be relieved of levies and taxes. In Germany, the use of self-generated electricity must be exempted from the Renewable Energy Sources Act levy. So-called tenant electricity models must be expanded to residential areas and commercial tenants.</p>
<p>Digitization is an opportunity to diversify the energy industry and make it resilient. The current regulatory framework often still favors the established players, however. For example, much of the power data is only available to certain market players, such as grid operators. An open data base could reduce system costs. The downside is that such transparency would make the system more vulnerable, requiring investment in cybersecurity.</p>
<h2><strong>3. Clean energy supply, digitization and data privacy must be considered together. The primacy of data economy must apply at all levels.</strong></h2>
<p>The smart meter – which tracks how much power was generated and consumed and when – is the flagship technology of the digitized power system. Its data is transmitted directly to the metering operator, generally the local grid operator. This eliminates the annual meter reading date. Furthermore, consumers can use suitable software to analyze the data and optimize their power consumption. When numerous producers and consumers have smart meters that exchange data automatically, this gives rise to a smart grid. This increases energy efficiency, creates potential savings and – as explained above – is essential to build the flexibility necessary for 100 percent renewables.</p>
<p>In Germany, the Digitization Act of August 2016, which in turn is based on the EU’s <a href="https://www.datenschutz-grundverordnung.eu/">General Data Protection Regulation</a>, provides the legal basis for the gradual installation of smart meters. This law is seen critically by privacy advocates. The fact that the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has developed the highest security standards for smart meters and smart meter gateways has not satisfied critical voices. And it is true that in theory, anything can be hacked. The power consumption data generated by smart meters can, in principle, provide insights into the lives of consumers. There is a fundamental risk that the analysis, use, collection, exploitation and marketing of the data will endanger the informational self-determination of consumers. This results in a smoldering conflict of objectives for the digitization of the power system.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2368039" height="853" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energy_tabelle_eng.png" width="1098" /><span style="font-size: smaller;">Table 1: Agora Energiewende (2016) </span><em style="font-size: smaller;">Energiewende: Was bedeuten die neuen Gesetze? Zehn Fragen und Antworten zu EEG 2017, Strommarkt- und Digitalisierungsgesetz</em><span style="font-size: smaller;"> (The transition to renewable energy: what impact will the new laws have? Ten questions and answers on the 2017 German Renewable Energy Sources Act, Electricity Market Act and Digitization Act), Berlin, p. 26</span></p>
<h2><strong>How to contain the smoldering conflict of objectives between data privacy and system openness</strong></h2>
<p>The Greens are calling for energy data to be kept secret and for data to be strictly earmarked, for the informal right of self-determination over one’s own data to be enforced and for consumers to be sufficiently informed and educated. The irreversible anonymization and earmarking of energy data could be tested in pilot projects by federal and state governments. Innovative data protection concepts such as privacy by design and privacy by default should be given stronger political support and incentives for investments in good data protection on the part of the state.</p>
<p>Data security is a further work in progress. Events such as the hacking of the German parliament and railway system bear witness to the fact that even critical infrastructure is never completely secure. Such attacks are seen as foretastes of possible disasters, as popularized in Marc Elsberg’s novel "Black Out", in which hackers use the internet for the wholesale installation of malicious code on smart meters and push the entire Western world to the edge of the abyss. What conclusions or demands arise from this?</p>
<h2><strong>4. The following points summarize the normative requirements for the digitization of the power system:</strong></h2>
<ol><li>
<p>Digitization depends on preconditions that it cannot itself create. The preservation of natural, analog resources is the benchmark for good or bad digitization. Digitization must be put at the service of this objective.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Digitization is a powerful tool. It is not a value or end in itself, however.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The digitization of the power system must be reconciled with the ecological idea of ​​the transition to renewable energy. Ecological governance must set an ecological course for digitization.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Digitization has the potential to broaden the social dimension of the power system. Decentralized prosumer models are simplified by smart networking. Digitization should contribute toward maintaining the diversity of actors in the power system, with the ultimate goal of creating a more democratic power system.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Digitization and data privacy are not complementary by nature. A flexible power system based entirely on solar, wind, etc., requires real-time information about user behavior in order to function. Energy experts and data privacy advocates need to agree here on a pragmatic approach to data regulations.</p>
</li>
</ol><div align="center">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" /></div>
<p><small><a name="1" id="1"><u>[1]</u></a> The word ecology itself infers moderation as a guiding principle: “Ecology” is the science of the economy of animals and plants (from the ancient Greek οἶκος oikos: “house”, “habitation”, and λόγος logos: “science”; i.e. “the study of housekeeping”). This housekeeping – in other words, these policies of limitation and moderation – must be designed to lead to positive social developments. The ecological question must be linked to the social question in an integrative and systematic manner.</small></p>
<p><small><a name="2" id="2"><u>[2]</u></a> European Union (2008): Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Official Journal of the European Union. 22 November 2008, Article 4, <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098</a>, accessed on October 16, 2017</small></p>
<p><small><a name="3" id="3"><u>[3]</u></a> Deutsche Rohstoffagentur (DER) (2016): Rohstoffe für Zukunftstechnologien (Raw materials for future technologies), Berlin, PDF version: <a href="https://www.deutsche-rohstoffagentur.de/DERA/DE/Downloads/Studie_Zukunftstechnologien-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&amp;v=3">https://www.deutsche-rohstoffagentur.de/DERA/DE/Downloads/Studie_Zukunft...</a>, accessed on July 26, 2017, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank (2017): The Growing Role of Minerals and Metals for a Low Carbon Future, New York. PDF version, <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/207371500386458722/pdf/117581-WP-P159838-PUBLIC-ClimateSmartMiningJuly.pdf">http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/207371500386458722/pdf/117581-...</a>, accessed on July 27, 2017</small></p>
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 13:50:02 +0200Stefanie Groll297379Linking Sectors: Power, transport, heat unitedhttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/24/linking-sectors-power-transport-heat-united
<a href="/en/2018/04/24/linking-sectors-power-transport-heat-united"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic-transformation-in-joining-sectors_23a_0.jpg?itok=A28y4GS6" width="300" height="200" alt="Infographic of the Energy Atlas – Transformation in joining sectors" title="Linking Sectors: Scheme of coupled sectors and major linking “power-to-X” technologies" /></a>
<p>Over the last decade, renewable electricity has seen remarkable growth. Between 2006 and 2016, renewables grew by an average of 5.3 percent a year in the EU, or by 66.6 percent over 10 years. By 2016, almost 90 percent of the new power generation capacity came from renewable sources, mostly wind and solar. In contrast, oil, coal and gas still dominate the transport, heating and cooling sectors; efforts to expand renewables for these purposes have had limited success. For the EU to reach its target – at least a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030 compared to 1990 levels – much more progress is needed.</p>
<p>Although renewable generation capacity has increased significantly, the capacity of conventional power stations remains virtually unchanged. Such power plants function as baseload units and still dominate the power mix in most member states. This poses a challenge as Europe moves towards a renewables-based system. Most conventional power plants lack flexibility: they are not designed to be turned off and on quickly. Solar and wind, on the other hand, produce a constantly fluctuating amount of power: they are subject to the whims of the weather, and solar panels are useless at night. As a result of the growing share of power from such sources, flexibility in the rest of the energy system has become increasingly important. It must be able to react quickly to fluctuations in both supply and demand so as to maintain a stable network.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2341751" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_energy-mix-2050_22.jpg" width="2067" height="1250" /></p>
<h2>The power sector has to be linked with transport, heating and cooling</h2>
<p>“Sector coupling” addresses these challenges by linking the power sector with transport, heating and cooling. Interconnections would make possible the use of surplus electricity to heat homes, store heat in district-heating networks, cool industrial processes, and charge the batteries of electric cars, thus helping to replace coal and gas, and drive down emissions. By connecting the heat, transport and electricity sectors we can achieve a fully renewable system with existing available technology. Increasing the share of electric vehicles to 80 percent in 2050 would cut emissions by another 255 Mt. Such moves would also limit the cost of maintaining ageing conventional power units or building new ones.</p>
<p>To make sector coupling commercially viable, electricity prices for end-users need to reflect the actual supply and demand. Prices should be lower when excess power is generated, and higher at times of shortage. But this is not the case. Today, households pay the same price for electricity even when demand drops at night or during holidays, when industrial production is curbed. At such times, electricity prices on the wholesale market fall close to zero or may even be negative, meaning power plant operators actually have to pay to feed electricity into the grid. The sensible thing would be to switch off some power stations, but big conventional coal and nuclear power plants are not designed to ramp up and shut down quickly.</p>
<h2>Sector Coupling is crucial for decarbonization</h2>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2341755" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_the-price-tag-for-smart-europe_23b.jpg" width="1004" height="1250" /></p>
<p>So far, strategies to reduce emissions have been implemented independently in the heating, electricity and transport sectors. The potential of sector coupling – increased energy efficiency, reduced CO<sub>2</sub> emissions, and cost reductions – remains untapped. But recent years have seen a growing interest in a more integrated approach. The first is in transport, where excess power could be stored in the batteries of electric vehicles, reducing the need for liquid fuel.</p>
<p>Coupling heating and cooling with the electricity sector will happen in two ways: through electrification and through technological innovation. In most places around the world, individual residential buildings are heated using coal, gas or low-quality fuels. In many cases, electrification may be the only alternative when there is no access to a gas network and when it is not cost-effective to build a network that supplies heat directly.New technologies such as power-to-heat could also be useful. This is a hybrid system where electricity is used to supplement traditional heating methods such as burning wood or gas. On sunny, windy days, electricity generation from renewables is particularly high. Using such power to heat homes is a new approach that is spreading quickly in countries with a lot of solar and wind potential.</p>
<p>Sector coupling is indispensable for the transition to renewable energy. It will attract the use of innovative technologies such as heat pumps, electric cars, power-to-heat solutions and demand-side management. Bringing these technologies into the market requires a more systematic, integrated approach, driven by a wide policy mix. Sector coupling will increase the system’s flexibility and strengthen energy security. At the same time, it will reduce the need to build new generating units and permit the phase-out of the oldest, dirtiest power plants throughout the European Union, leading to a reduction in CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and lower long term costs.</p>
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:00:52 +0200Dr. Joanna Maćkowiak-Pandera297307Energy Atlas: Graphics and license termshttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/24/energy-atlas-graphics-and-license-terms
<p>All graphs and articles of the Energy Atlas are published under a <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de" target="lizenz">Creative Commons Lizenz CC BY 4.0</a>.</p>
<p>You are free to</p>
<ul class="license-properties"><li class="license share" rel="cc:permits"><strong>Share</strong> — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format</li>
<li class="license remix" rel="cc:permits"><strong>Adapt</strong> — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.</li>
</ul><p class="license remix"> </p>
<p>Under the following terms:</p>
<ul><li><strong>Attribution</strong> — <span rel="cc:requires">You must give <a class="helpLink" data-original-title="" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/#" id="appropriate_credit_popup" title="">appropriate credit</a></span>, provide a link to the license, and <span rel="cc:requires"><a class="helpLink" data-original-title="" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/#" id="indicate_changes_popup" title="">indicate if changes were made</a></span>. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.</li>
<li><strong>No additional restrictions</strong> — You may not apply legal terms or <a class="helpLink" data-original-title="" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/#" id="technological_measures_popup" title="">technological measures</a> that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.<br /> </li>
</ul><p>A possible referencing would by the licence would be:</p>
<blockquote><p>Graphic: Bartz/Stockmar, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de" target="lizenz">CC BY 4.0</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If adapted:</p>
<blockquote><p>Graphic: Bartz/Stockmar (M), <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de" target="lizenz">CC BY 4.0</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>We are happy to recieve a link directed to the original source.<br />Graphics for download:</p>
<ul><li>All <a href="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energy_atlas_2018_-_infographics-as_jpg.zip" target="_blank">graphics as JPG</a></li>
<li>All <a href="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energy_atlas_2018_-_infographics-as_png.zip" target="_blank">graphics as PNG</a></li>
<li>All <a href="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energy_atlas_2018_-_infographics-as_pdf.zip" target="_blank">graphics as PDF</a></li>
</ul>
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:00:49 +0200Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung297309Citizens: Many drops make a riverhttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/24/citizens-many-drops-make-river
<a href="/en/2018/04/24/citizens-many-drops-make-river"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_power_production-and-services-by-energy-citizens_16.jpg?itok=bCwCDtxX" width="300" height="200" alt="Infographic of the Energy Atlas – Community energy" title="From energy consumer to participant – the potential for 2050" /></a>
<p>The two countries in Europe that have installed the most renewable energy since 2009 are Denmark and Germany. These are also the countries with the highest citizen participation in the energy transition. In Germany, many different ownership models exist, and only five percent of the installed renewable energy capacity is owned by large, traditional energy utilities. In Denmark, wind projects are given permits only if the developers are at least 20 percent owned by local communities.</p>
<p>In many countries public objections have slowed or blocked the development of renewable energy. But if citizens own, or co-own, renewable installations, they are more likely to welcome projects, and less likely to object to them. It is easy to understand why people are less keen on large infrastructure in their community when all the profits flow out of the local area and they do not have any say in where and how the project is developed. Such nimbyism has been a serious problem particularly in the United Kingdom and now also in Belgium, France and other parts of Europe. It is therefore essential to put people and communities at the heart of the Europe-wide energy transition.</p>
<h2>Participation in local energy systems brings the Energiewende nearer to the people</h2>
<p>The energy transition is a challenge that needs to be acted on at every level of society. The proposed Clean Energy package of 2016 is an attempt by the EU to set the goals and rules for the European energy system in the period up to 2030. But large chunks of legislation like this can seem remote and obscure. Many normal citizens see that their energy systems are owned by a few big companies, which make a lot of money, are governed by a small elite of managers in their corporate headquarters and are subject to policymakers in Brussels.</p>
<p>But community renewable-energy projects already exist in all shapes and forms. The cooperatives and community groups that own and run them connect the local with the European levels. When citizens own and do well out of the energy system, concepts like the European energy transition are no longer distant but have a relevance and importance to people’s lives.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2341759" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_installed-renewable-energy-capacity-for-power-generation_17a.jpg" height="950" width="2067" /></p>
<p>Community energy neews the right political framework</p>
<p>There are many reasons a community may want to invest in a local energy project. Projects that are locally owned generate eight times more profit to the local economy than equivalents that are owned by transnational developers. That both helps the local economy develop and brings intangible benefits such as a sense of pride in the community.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset apostillefloat" data-boe-fid="2373755" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_europes-largest-energy-retailers-17b.jpg" style="width: 1004px; height: 1350px;" /></p>
<p>There is no central database, so it is difficult to estimate the number of citizens involved in the energy transition. But it is clear that many thousands of diverse projects exist across Europe. Eastern Europe is lagging behind as suitable policy conditions do not exist, and governments still give special treatment to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. These countries have huge potential; with the right policy framework, community energy will be able to spread eastwards.</p>
<p>A 2016 report by CE Delft, a research organization, estimated that 264 million “energy citizens” could generate 45 percent of the EU’s electricity needs by 2050. The same report also shows the potential of different types of energy citizens: in 2050, collective projects and cooperatives could contribute 37 percent of the electricity produced by energy citizens. These are the projects that often have the largest positive impact on the local economy.</p>
<p>Achieving such levels of ownership will depend on the right policies – but these are lacking in many countries. One of the biggest barriers is the current overcapacity in the energy market: the amount of electricity being generated exceeds the demand. This is because a lot of fossil and nuclear energy is being subsidized in order to maintain “energy security”, thus stifling the market for community-owned renewable projects.</p>
<p>Current rules make it unlikely that millions of people will participate in the energy transition in the next decade. Changes are needed, and much will depend on the decisions made in finalizing the proposals put forward in the Clean Energy package. A stable, supportive framework would mean a right for citizens and communities to produce, consume, store and sell their own energy. It would require eliminating the excess charges and administrative barriers that block community projects, as well as creating a level playing field so that they can enter the market.</p>
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:00:32 +0200Molly Walsh297313Economy: Making progress, more work neededhttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/24/economy-making-progress-more-work-needed
<a href="/en/2018/04/24/economy-making-progress-more-work-needed"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_eus-largest-greenhouse-gas-emitters_15.jpg?itok=PDxA1zW_" width="300" height="200" alt="Infographic of the Energy Atlas – Economy" title="Economy, energy and environment decoupled" /></a>
<p>Ten years ago, renewables were regarded by many as a threat to economic prosperity and growth. Advocates of the fossil-fuel industry, in particular, claimed that wind, solar and biomass sources were simply too expensive, and realistically would never be able to provide more than 3–4 percent of the demand for electricity. They feared that a switch to renewable energy would slow economic development across Europe. Nevertheless, a number of European countries, most prominently Denmark and Germany, forged ahead and invested in pioneering renewable-energy sources, despite their apparent costs and unproven role. Today, renewables are no longer a fringe technology. They have accounted for the majority of new generating capacity for eight years in a row, and in 2015 they made up 16.7 percent of the EU’s final energy consumption.</p>
<h2>Renewables recieve less subsidies than fossil fuels</h2>
<p>The biggest boost has come from the rapidly falling costs of the technologies. Since 2009, the cost of solar has dropped by a staggering 75 percent, and wind by 66 percent. Of course, stark differences still remain among member states of the EU; renewables currently account for 30 percent of gross final energy consumption in Finland and Sweden, but just 5 percent in Luxembourg and Malta.</p>
<p>However, one trend is very clear: renewables are becoming ever more competitive with conventional sources such as natural gas, coal and nuclear. The build-up of renewables has helped the EU reduce its fossil-fuel consumption by 11 percent since 2005 and to cut the import bill for fossil fuels by more than 35 percent since 2013. Renewables have mainly been used to replace coal (half of the fossil fuels substituted) and natural gas (28 percent). Substituting oil has been less successful because renewables are not yet widely used in the transport sector, where oil is the main fuel.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2342931" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_falling-world-market-prices-of-fossil-fuels_14.jpg" width="2067" height="1400" /></p>
<p>Throughout Europe, fossil fuels have traditionally benefited from hefty public subsidies, creating a powerful incentive to burn them. Renewables have also received incentives, for example in the form of feed-in tariffs where producers of renewable energy receive a fixed purchase price for the power they generate. But these incentives have been nowhere close to those offered to the fossil-fuel industry. Across the EU, the EU itself and its members’ governments distribute over 112 billion euros a year in handouts to the fossil-fuel sector. In contrast, renewables receive 40 billion euros. A switch from fossil fuels to renewables would free up money for more pressing social and welfare needs.</p>
<h2>Renewables are becoming the more preferred alternative</h2>
<p>The rise of renewables has not slowed economic growth in Europe. Between 2006 and 2015, the European economy grew by a sluggish 0.7 percent while the share of renewables in final energy consumption grew by 7.7 percent. But the economy was held back by the global financial crisis of 2008–10, not by the growth in renewables. Since 2005, greenhouse gas emissions in Europe have fallen by 10 percent, and for the first time, the continent has seen a decoupling of its economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. In essence, this is what the energy transformation can do: trigger economic prosperity while reducing the carbon footprint caused by burning fossil fuels. Renewables play a major role in driving this trend.</p>
<p>While Europe has been a world leader in investments in renewable energy, its share in global investment fell from 46 percent in 2005 to 17 percent in 2015, as other regions discovered the economic opportunities offered by renewables. Nevertheless, Europe aims to be a global leader in research and innovation in this field. The EU’s biggest research programme, Horizon 2020, allocates 6 billion euros to renewable energy for the period 2014–20.The renewable sector is already a big employer, providing more than a million jobs in Europe in 2014. In terms of jobs per capita, Europe’s renewable sector was number two in the world in 2014. It now ranks fifth, behind China, the United States, Japan and Brazil, and it is in danger of further losing out to emerging economies. Most jobs in renewable energy are in the wind, solar and biomass sectors, as these technologies have seen the fastest global growth rates and the sharpest cost decreases in recent years.Europ</p>
<p>e aims to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the middle of this century. To achieve this, the share of renewables will have to grow significantly, not only in the power but also in the heating, cooling and transport sectors. The economic realities of renewables – as well as environmental or climate concerns – make them a preferred alternative to fossil fuels, and many Europeans already benefit directly from this development.</p>
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:00:26 +0200Rebecca Bertram297321History: From coal to climatehttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/24/history-coal-climate
<a href="/en/2018/04/24/history-coal-climate"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/04/european-integration-and-energy-politics-cutout.jpg?itok=8IoxT51A" width="300" height="200" alt="Infographic of the Energy Atlas – From Coal to Climate" title="European integration and energy politics" /></a>
<p>Energy has played a major role in the history of the European Union. Coal was the first fuel to be exploited; signed in 1951, the Treaty of Paris established the European Coal and Steel Community. With the signing of the Euratom treaty in 1957 to promote nuclear power, energy was once again the backbone of European integration. The economic base of energy cooperation was further strengthened with the Treaty of Rome in 1957 that created the European Economic Community, the predecessor of today’s EU.</p>
<p>Energy-supply issues dominated the early years of European integration. However, governed by protectionist policies, national energy markets remained largely isolated from one another. Spurred on by the 1973 oil crisis, Europe’s leaders developed a more coordinated approach to jointly tackling energy shortages. But the Single European Act of 1987 was the first serious attempt to deepen integration and remove barriers to cross-border energy trade.</p>
<p>The realization that humans were influencing the climate came in the 1980s. In the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the EU committed to an 8 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 compared to 1990 levels. In the same year, the Amsterdam Treaty included sustainable development as a cross-cutting objective.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2342935" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_steps-towards-decarbonization_10.jpg" width="2067" height="1100" /></p>
<p>A major obstacle to cross-border energy trade was the monopolistic structure of the national markets for generation and transmission, preventing third parties from accessing the grid. To overcome this, in 1996 and 2003, the EU adopted the first electricity directives that aimed at increasing competition in the power market and ensuring a free choice among electricity suppliers. Similar directives for gas were issued in 1998 and 2003. The third energy market package in 2009 aimed to break up vertically integrated energy utilities.</p>
<p>The 2009 Lisbon Treaty, for the first time, included a separate section on energy. This outlined the objectives of EU energy policy, namely to, “ensure the functioning of the energy market; ensure security of energy supply in the Union; promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and promote the interconnection of energy networks.”</p>
<p>In the past decade, climate threats have increasingly been a driving force in the EU’s energy policy. An energy and climate package agreed in 2007 set binding sustainable energy targets for 2020. These are a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20 percent share of renewables in final energy consumption, and an indicative target of 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2342933" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_european-integration-and-energy-politics_11.jpg" width="1004" height="3050" /></p>
<p>In 2014, the EU adopted its 2030 energy and climate framework that called for a greenhouse gas reduction goal of at least 40 percent, at least a 27 percent share for renewables in the energy sector, and at least a 27 percent improvement in energy efficiency. These targets form a basis for the Clean Energy Package currently being negotiated, which lays out the legal groundwork for future energy policy. But these cuts are still not steep enough to fulfil the EU’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.</p>
<p>Europe imports 54 percent of its energy. Yet the European Commission has limited competency in its external energy policies. Member states have sovereignty over foreign and security matters, and they find themselves in different positions in terms of their reliance on imports and on different suppliers and transit countries. The 2004 enlargement of the EU gave a new push for a more coordinated external energy policy, mainly because the new eastern members were dependent on Russian gas supplies. The European Neighbourhood Policy, launched in the same year and revised in 2015, sets the framework for how the EU engages with its neighbours to the east and south in advancing its sustainable energy goals. The Energy Community, signed in 2005, aims to extend the EU energy market rules to non-members in southeastern Europe.</p>
<p>2005 also saw a commitment by EU leaders to develop a coherent energy policy with three pillars: competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply. The repeated gas disputes between Russia and Ukraine in 2005–6, 2008 and 2009, as well as geopolitical tension in Northern Africa and the Middle East leading to the increasing vulnerability of the external energy supplies, have reinforced the need for such a policy.<br />The shift towards renewable energy holds untapped potential to reduce the continent’s dependence on external suppliers and enhance its energy security. Europe is beginning to look inwards and to drive forward the development of its internal energy market. The Energy Union, a project launched in 2015, tries to bring the 2030 climate and energy framework and the energy security strategy under one roof. The Paris Agreement of the same year committed the EU to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The “Clean energy for all Europeans” package of 2016 aims to align EU internal energy legislation with its Paris commitments.</p>
<p>Overall, energy policy is shifting from a phase of fragmentation to a period of gradual synchronization between member states and the EU. Energy lies at a crossroads between climate objectives, national interests and supranational regulation, sectoral dynamics and geopolitical conflicts. EU energy policy is also undergoing a major change. We are witnessing not only a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but also to new ownership models, and increasing decentralization and democratization of energy supply and distribution. Europe has a historic mission: to serve as a global model for energy transition and green innovations, and to lead the way in curbing global warming.</p>
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:00:08 +0200Dr. Radostina Primova297325Vision: Looking to be leaderhttps://www.boell.de/en/2018/04/24/vision-looking-to-be-leader
<a href="/en/2018/04/24/vision-looking-to-be-leader"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/styles/300x200/public/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_employment-by-renewables_13a.jpg?itok=RgFpM-r8" width="300" height="200" alt="Infographic of the Energy Atlas – EMPLOYMENT BY RENEWABLES" title="EMPLOYMENT BY RENEWABLES – CHINA, EUROPE AND REST OF THE WORLD" /></a>
<p>The world’s climate is changing faster than ever, and the people of Europe are more and more informed about its dangers. That awareness is being converted into action. Citizens, governments and corporations are realizing that converting to greener forms of energy is not an expensive and painful exercise, but one that brings economic benefits: cost savings, new industries, local jobs that cannot be relocated, and energy security.</p>
<p>Europe is already a world leader in many green technologies, including onshore and offshore wind power. The energy transition offers export opportunities to disseminate this know-how worldwide. Competition from North America and the Far East is pushing Europe to invest further in research and innovation, and to establish conditions where green technologies can flourish. These include a dynamic domestic market that allows the large-scale deployment of renewable energy, a construction sector focusing on “positive-energy” buildings (ones that produce more power than they consume), and green transportation. With better interconnections between national power grids and the transport and heating sectors Europe can easily get 100 percent of the energy it needs from renewable sources, thereby reducing our fossil fuel import bill to zero.</p>
<h2>Investments in green technologies increase geopolitical power</h2>
<p>The Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 has shown that the world will only be able to limit climate change if it abandons the use of fossil fuels. Carbon risk is a tangible problem, and investors will gradually pull out of fossil fuels in favour of green technology. The accord has raised awareness about the potential of renewables and the benefits of energy efficiency. Flagship projects are emerging with EU financial support, such as offshore windfarms in the North Sea and Baltic Sea, the conversion of district heating from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and European corridors for electric mobility.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2341765" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_investment-in-future-and-forecast-demand_12.jpg" width="1004" height="1650" /></p>
<p>For the past 100 years, geopolitical strength has depended on countries possessing or having access to energy resources. In the future, it will rely on gaining competitive advantage from the best environmental technologies. The countries that advance solar and wind power, smart grids and energy storage will be one step ahead. Reducing their fossil-fuel imports will strengthen their energy security. This is the case for Europe. Accelerating the deployment of green technology will reduce Europe’s dependence on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia and increase its geopolitical clout.</p>
<p>But Europe’s economy still relies heavily on fossil fuels, mostly for heating, cooling and transportation. Transport remains the hardest sector to decarbonize: more than 90 percent of vehicles in the EU burn fossil fuels. However, the “dieselgate” scandal, where carmakers tried to cheat on official emissions tests, has become a serious setback for diesel engines. The growing awareness of the harm that diesel exhaust does to human lungs is likely to hasten the uptake of electric vehicles. Fewer cars in cities, allocating more space to walking and cycling, and greener public transport can change mobility patterns in cities and trigger cleaner air and better health.</p>
<h2>Energy transitions are paving the way for democracy</h2>
<p>The energy transition is also a battle for democracy. When it comes to making change happen, an all-powerful market cannot be left without any checks and balances. For too long, citizens have been at the mercy of economic and geopolitical interests that are beyond their reach. Empowering people and giving them the right to choose is essential because it is citizens who pick up the bill. The energy transition allows customers to be more than just passive subjects unable to exert influence on decisions.</p>
<p><img alt="" class="insertasset" data-boe-fid="2341769" src="https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/uploads/2018/04/energyatlas2018_graphic_worldwide-energy-investment-stock-by-energy-sources_13b.jpg" width="1004" height="800" /></p>
<p>Millions of individuals, cooperatives and local authorities can play a vital role in the energy transition by owning, or co-owning, renewable-energy generation facilities; they can be actively involved by producing their own electricity and employing smart meters to optimize their energy consumption. The pro-climate movement of European local authorities is blooming. Millions of citizens are turning to renewables, individually or by joining cooperatives.</p>
<p>The transition must go hand-in-hand with new economic perspectives for coal-producing regions. Low prices for carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme have artificially extended the lifespan of coal- as well as lignite mines and power plants, increasing the economic pain for those regions when the switch finally occurs. Instead of ignoring this, the progressive and firm shutdown of mines and power plants should be coupled with effective planning and management and a ‘fair transition’ for workers at both the local and regional levels to avoid a major social crisis.Past EU policies have triggered the energy transition in Europe. Policy decisions made today will define the framework for the next decades. The right choices will determine whether the EU can seize the twin opportunities presented, helping to save the planet from climate catastrophe and making it the world’s leader in green technology.</p>
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:00:07 +0200Claude Turmes297317